J.S.M., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's failure to obtain a list of placement options from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services before committing a child mandates a remand for compliance with the statute.
J.S.M. was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the custody of HRS. The predisposition report did not provide the court with the required list of p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delinquency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
J.S.M. appeals his adjudication of delinquency and the disposition ordered by the trial court.
The state filed a delinquency petition charging J.S.M. with sale of cannabis. He entered a plea of no contest. A predisposition report was submitted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) recommending J.S.M. be placed on community control. The report did not present any placement options for consideration should the court decide to commit J.S.M. The trial court adjudicated him delinquent and committed him to the custody of HRS. The trial court orally announced specific reasons for the decision. The court’s order listed a single placement option, Eckerd Youth Development Center. Section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985) provides, in pertinent part:
If the court decides to commit a child to the department, the department shall furnish the court, in order of the preference of the department, a list of not less than three options for programs in which the child may be placed. The court shall rank the options presented by the department in order of the preference of the court.
Since the trial court failed to observe the mandatory requirements of section 39.- 09(3)(e), we remand for compliance with this statute. See T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency, but we reverse the court’s disposition and remand for further proceedings in compliance with section 39.09(3)(e).
CAMPBELL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. The lower court’s action in selecting and ranking three placement options which were not recommended by H.R.S. was in violation of the mandatory dictates of section 39.09(3)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). See J.S.M. v. State, 505 So. 2d 583 (Fla.2d DCA 1987); A.H. v. State, 499 So. 2d 27 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Margain, 495 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); In re Interest of L.B., 493 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d…
-
A.T. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…outside them to insert its own placement option. T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). Since the trial court failed to observe the mandatory requirements of section 39.09(3)(e), we remand for compliance with this statute. J.S.M. v. State, 505 So. 2d 583 (Fla.2d DCA 1987). On remand, the trial court must then comply with the additional provisions set forth in section 39.09(3). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s disposition and remand for further proceedings in compliance with section 39.09(…
-
M.M. v. The Honorable Lawrence L. Korda, 544 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…rnatives for H.R.S. recommendations, we would be compelled to reverse. See C.A.B. v. State, 510 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); F.D.R v. State, 510 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); A.T. v. State, 516 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); J.S.M. v. State, 505 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. R.S., 511 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Similarly, mandamus has been held to be appropriately granted upon petition by H.R.S., where a trial court refuses to accept the depart…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- T.D. v. State, 486 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)